Daniel Boiani

A 12-day trial in a child protection application under the Child and Family Services Act concerning a child (B.F.D.) nearly three years old.

The Catholic Children's Aid Society sought a finding that the child was in need of protection and a disposition of crown wardship without access for purposes of adoption.

The father consented to both the protection finding and crown wardship.

The mother opposed the application and sought the child's return to her care, subject to a supervision order.

The court found the child was in need of protection under sections 37(2)(b) and (g) of the CFSA based on risk of physical and emotional harm.

The court made an order for crown wardship without access, finding that a supervision order would be ineffective given the mother's persistent non-compliance, uncooperative behavior, substance abuse, anger management issues, and lack of insight into the protection concerns.

This is a costs endorsement following a family law trial in which the respondent (mother) obtained sole custody of the parties' children and child support of $1,004 per month.

The applicant (father) was self-represented at trial.

The mother sought full recovery costs of $30,178.60, while the father sought no costs award.

The court awarded costs to the mother but at a significantly reduced amount due to procedural deficiencies in her costs claim and the requirement that costs be proportional to the amount in issue and the outcome.

The court considered the mother's offer to settle, the parties' litigation behaviour, and the divided success on certain issues.

A trial decision concerning custody, access, and child support for two children (ages 7 and 4).

The father sought a parallel-parenting order with independent decision-making authority in different areas; the mother sought sole custody.

The court found both parents contributed to high-conflict dynamics that exposed the children to emotional harm.

The court granted sole custody to the mother while providing the father with significant access rights (alternate weekends, summer access, and consultation on major decisions) and ordered child support including table amount and special expenses.

The decision provides extensive analysis of when parallel-parenting orders are appropriate in high-conflict cases.